Alan Carlin: Press Release on new research report showing CO2 has no significant effect on temperatures

In their latest report the authors point out: ‘it is never mathematically proper to attempt to validate any theory embedded in a model using the model itself.’

As discussed last week, several reports have shown in the last year or two that carbon dioxide (CO2) does not significantly affect global temperatures, contrary to endless repetitions to the contrary by climate alarmists and the mainstream press.

Today some of the same authors of the reports discussed last week have released a new report that among other things makes a similar point using a different data set, making a total of 15 such data sets between the earlier reports and this new report.

This is like doing 15 experiments using different observations of the same phenomenon and reaching the same conclusion each time.

As explained last week, I believe this “no significant effect” finding is the most important finding of climate research in the last few years.

The release of this new report today was accompanied by the following press release:

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Robert Ian Holmes, Thermal Enhancement on Planetary Bodies and the Relevance of the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law to the Null Hypothesis of Climate Change, Earth Sciences. Vol. 7, No. 3, 2018, pp. 107-123. doi: 10.11648/j.earth.20180703.13

“it is never mathematically proper to attempt to validate any theory embedded in a model using the model itself.”

Exactly. All you are doing then is modeling the assumptions. That is perfectly fine – if you admit that is what you are doing. But so many climate scientists (and to be fair, others, in other fields too) do not seem to recognise this.

As Prof. Hajek said recently about another topic:

“The model only reflects whatever spurious assumptions are put into it. Starting with the opposite assumptions would generate the opposite result. This is no route to a scientific finding.”

The trouble is, the IPCC ‘summary reports for policymakers’ gloss over the original research showing the failure of the models to represent observed reality. Then leaders make decisions based on this distorted information and advice that their own employees have created for them.

“Every system of concepts which satisfies a system of axioms can be called a model of that system of axioms.
The interpretation of an axiomatic system as a system of (conventions or) implicit definitions can also be expressed by saying that it amounts to the decision: only models may be admitted as substitutes.
2 But if a model is substituted then the result will be a system of analytic statements (since it will be true by convention). An axiomatic system interpreted in this way cannot therefore be regarded as a system of empirical or scientific hypotheses (in our sense) since it cannot be refuted by the falsification of its consequences; for these too must be analytic.”–The Logic of Scientific Discovery p53 Karl Popper

Hmm, all this rubbish in / from the Press: yesterday BBC told us NOx is a fertiliser – WRONG plants growing too well in roadside verges! Seem to remember the Green Blob dictating what kind of grass seed mixtures to sow (artificially induced plant population) in the verges, followed by poor management – just like large visibility splays on roads getting planted with trees ( sometimes Crow-planted) and THIS morning BBC report on WRONG type of wildlife in the countryside – not enough wild rabbits !!! Just another case of townies telling us how to conform to their model. FACT is: the WORLD model is the REAL thing – does its own thing, controlled by the energy input of the Sun,